Joined
·
2,759 Posts
At Bradney's suggestion, here's my reply to Bill and Daphne on what we might ask in the rules to make the process that Randy Zimmer went through in Rim work better. Part 1 is specific replies to Daphne's points that I think show we have inadequate procedures in the current rules. Part 2 has 2 speicifc proposals to change that. Wording improvements, views on possible unintended results, etc. are wanted.
Thanks,
Mark Bowers
--------------------------
PART 1
>8.2.A.5: 5 minute penalty for initial traffic citation
>(other than speeding) Note: 8.2.C.1 allows for exclusion
>for more than one traffic citation.
Does not apply here; no citation was issued. Note to everyone: The requirement for a citation to be issued is that this provides documented proof of an offense from an independent party, that avoids the possibility of one competitor "finking" on another for advantage.
>
>8.5.2 - regarding the conduct of contestants
>Any participant charged with an offense under this Article
>shall be fully appraised of the charges and afforded an
>opportunity to answer then in writing to the RSD.
Daphne, I do believe that this section on unsportsmanlike conduct is intended to apply to "after-the-event" discipline, when grave improprieties can be dealt with after the heat of battle, like on-track incidents of intentionally wrecking someone else, fighting with a spectator, etc. This language comes from road racing events, where you have one race, and that's it, not what are a series of small races (stages). All of the processes described involve written actions with no time limit, and the entities involved on the SCCA side are the Pro Rally Department (PRD) and the Rally-Solo Department. Even if the PRD is represented in the form of Kurt or some other designated person, these procedures cannot be adequately during the progress of an event. The only portion of 8.5 that applies is the first paragraph of section A, which sets forth a requirement for conduct, but no specific penalties.
>
>Section 8.2 prescribes the above as normal penalties, but
>does allow the Event Steward to exclude a competitor if
>warranted by the offence.
The hole in using this in Randy's situation is that unportsmanlike conduct is not a listed offense. It appears that this should be added.
------------------
PART 2
Daph, Bill, et al:
It appears to me that the only possible charge against Randy that cold possibly be pulled out of the rule book is unsportsmanlike conduct. However, I think that application of this charge of this offense is a bit of a stretch, depending on what you think "sportsmanlike conduct" is. I think the real charge should be along the lines of "conduct that violates state law but does not involve a citation, and/or endangers the public, or threatens the future of the sport or event".
Hmmmm, maybe this IS unsportsmanlike conduct. If so, Bill, first rules change suggestion: I would suggest that a broad definition of unsportsmanlike conduct be proposed for inclusion in section 8.2, as a specific, chargeable penalty, with specific penalites outlined. I can try to wordsmith this if you like. (Where is ole' Adrian when you need him? Ooooh Adrian.......)
Then, specific procedures should be incorporated for exclusion during an event; the procedures in 8.5 are not intended, and are quite inadequate, for an "event in progress" in dealing with this situation.
I would suggest that the whole issue of exclusion while an event is in progress be addressed specifically in section 8.2 by added language. Suggestions on wording:
" A competitor whom the event steward considers for immediate exclusion from an rally in progress will be presented with the charges immediately, and will be given 30 minutes to respond in person to the event steward(and explain the situation; bad language here), before the penalty may be enforced. This process can only be applied at a major break in the event, when adequate time is avialable for this process."
My rationale: Charges for a serious penalty are presented, defense is allowed, and adequate time is insured. The bad thing about a rally exclusion is that if you are vindicated later, there is no redress.
Your thoughts are welcome!
Mark B.
Thanks,
Mark Bowers
--------------------------
PART 1
>8.2.A.5: 5 minute penalty for initial traffic citation
>(other than speeding) Note: 8.2.C.1 allows for exclusion
>for more than one traffic citation.
Does not apply here; no citation was issued. Note to everyone: The requirement for a citation to be issued is that this provides documented proof of an offense from an independent party, that avoids the possibility of one competitor "finking" on another for advantage.
>
>8.5.2 - regarding the conduct of contestants
>Any participant charged with an offense under this Article
>shall be fully appraised of the charges and afforded an
>opportunity to answer then in writing to the RSD.
Daphne, I do believe that this section on unsportsmanlike conduct is intended to apply to "after-the-event" discipline, when grave improprieties can be dealt with after the heat of battle, like on-track incidents of intentionally wrecking someone else, fighting with a spectator, etc. This language comes from road racing events, where you have one race, and that's it, not what are a series of small races (stages). All of the processes described involve written actions with no time limit, and the entities involved on the SCCA side are the Pro Rally Department (PRD) and the Rally-Solo Department. Even if the PRD is represented in the form of Kurt or some other designated person, these procedures cannot be adequately during the progress of an event. The only portion of 8.5 that applies is the first paragraph of section A, which sets forth a requirement for conduct, but no specific penalties.
>
>Section 8.2 prescribes the above as normal penalties, but
>does allow the Event Steward to exclude a competitor if
>warranted by the offence.
The hole in using this in Randy's situation is that unportsmanlike conduct is not a listed offense. It appears that this should be added.
------------------
PART 2
Daph, Bill, et al:
It appears to me that the only possible charge against Randy that cold possibly be pulled out of the rule book is unsportsmanlike conduct. However, I think that application of this charge of this offense is a bit of a stretch, depending on what you think "sportsmanlike conduct" is. I think the real charge should be along the lines of "conduct that violates state law but does not involve a citation, and/or endangers the public, or threatens the future of the sport or event".
Hmmmm, maybe this IS unsportsmanlike conduct. If so, Bill, first rules change suggestion: I would suggest that a broad definition of unsportsmanlike conduct be proposed for inclusion in section 8.2, as a specific, chargeable penalty, with specific penalites outlined. I can try to wordsmith this if you like. (Where is ole' Adrian when you need him? Ooooh Adrian.......)
Then, specific procedures should be incorporated for exclusion during an event; the procedures in 8.5 are not intended, and are quite inadequate, for an "event in progress" in dealing with this situation.
I would suggest that the whole issue of exclusion while an event is in progress be addressed specifically in section 8.2 by added language. Suggestions on wording:
" A competitor whom the event steward considers for immediate exclusion from an rally in progress will be presented with the charges immediately, and will be given 30 minutes to respond in person to the event steward(and explain the situation; bad language here), before the penalty may be enforced. This process can only be applied at a major break in the event, when adequate time is avialable for this process."
My rationale: Charges for a serious penalty are presented, defense is allowed, and adequate time is insured. The bad thing about a rally exclusion is that if you are vindicated later, there is no redress.
Your thoughts are welcome!
Mark B.